9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 448 - AAR - GSTMaintainability of Advance ruling application - Section 97(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Whether DPT shall continue to pay GST on disputed claim? - How is it possible for DPT to claim refund for GST paid out of pocket, if the matter / dispute concluded in favour of party / lease holder, considering the fact that it may conclude after period of 2 or more years? Held that - The issues raised by the applicant do not fall in the category of Section 97(2) of the Acts. Whether the applicant shall continue to pay GST on disputed claims do not require determination of any issue enumerated under Section 97(2) of the Acts. Further, the issue of refund claim in case of conclusion o dispute after more than 2 years, is also not covered by Section 97(2) of the Acts. This authority has been constituted in exercise of the powers conferred by section 96 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which Act extends to the whole of the state of Gujarat. This authority is a creature of statute and has to function within the legal boundary mandated by the Act. As the issue of refund claim and whether the applicant shall continue to pay GST on disputed claims are not covered by Section 97(2) of the Acts, this authority is helpless to answer the question raised in the application, as it is lacking jurisdiction to decide the issues. The jurisdiction of this authority does not extend to the questions on determination of these issues. The application for Advance Ruling of M/s. Kandla Port Trust (Deendayal Port Trust) is rejected, under sub-section (2) of section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the GGST Act, 2017.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the applicant shall continue to pay GST on disputed claims? - How is it possible for the applicant to claim a refund for GST paid out of pocket if the dispute concludes in favor of the lease holder after a period of two or more years? Analysis: 1. The applicant, a port trust, owns land leased to various organizations. Disputes arose regarding revised lease rates, with some lessees, including government undertakings, challenging the rates. The applicant continued to pay GST out of pocket despite non-payment by lessees for the disputed amount. 2. The applicant sought clarification on whether they should continue paying GST on disputed claims and how to claim a refund if the dispute favors the lessee after a prolonged period. The Advance Ruling Authority considered the submissions and the legal framework under the CGST Act, 2017, and the GGST Act, 2017. 3. Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the GGST Act, 2017, delineate the issues within the purview of the Advance Ruling Authority. These include classification of goods or services, applicability of notifications, determination of supply time and value, input tax credit admissibility, tax liability determination, registration necessity, and defining a supply of goods or services. 4. The issues raised by the applicant did not align with those specified under Section 97(2) of the Acts. The question of continuing to pay GST on disputed claims and refund claims post a prolonged dispute did not fall under the Authority's jurisdiction for advance rulings. 5. The Authority, established under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, operates within the legal confines set by the Act. As the issues raised by the applicant were beyond the scope of Section 97(2) of the Acts, the Authority lacked jurisdiction to address these matters, leading to the rejection of the application without delving into the case's merits. 6. The application by the port trust for an Advance Ruling was rejected based on the lack of jurisdiction to decide on the questions of refund claims and the continuation of GST payment on disputed claims, as these matters were not within the ambit of issues earmarked for the Advance Ruling Authority under the CGST Act, 2017, and the GGST Act, 2017.
|
